4.6 Article

Testing the importance of the retrosplenial guidance system: effects of different sized retrosplenial cortex lesions on heading direction and spatial working memory

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 155, 期 1, 页码 97-108

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2004.04.005

关键词

heading direction; radial-arm maze; rats; retrosplenial cortex; spatial memory; water maze

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(T)he present study: (1) tested the importance of the retrosplenial cortex for learning a specific heading direction and distance and, (2) determined if lesion size could explain apparent inconsistencies in the results of different research groups. Dark agouti rats received either 'complete' cytotoxic retrosplenial cortex lesions or 'standard' lesions, the latter sparing the caudal retrosplenial cortex. Animals were first tested on two versions of a landmark task in a water maze. In condition I animals could use both heading direction and allocentric position, while in condition 2 only heading direction was effective. In condition 1, animals with complete retrosplenial lesions were impaired by the end of training, their profile of performance being consistent with a failure to use allocentric position information. When the water maze task changed (condition 2) so that allocentric cues became redundant, the animals with complete retrosplenial lesions were able to head in the appropriate direction although they showed longer swim paths. Subsequent testing in the radial-arm maze provided more evidence that retrosplenial lesions can disrupt the use of distal (allocentric) room cues. The impairments seen with retrosplenial lesions were often mild but throughout the study performance of rats with 'complete' lesions was more disrupted than those with 'standard' lesions, who often did not differ from the controls. These findings show that lesion size is a critical factor and may explain why some studies have failed to find comparable deficits after retrosplenial cortex lesions. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据